If you are a US Citizen then you are bound to US laws regardless of where you are, this means if you are a US citizen who happens to want to tow his spaceship to Nauru, you still have to have US permission to send it out of the country, transport it, launch it, and so on. That isn't the case with all countries, but it is with the USA. There are no "Flag of Convenience" tankers in space.

A good case is SeaLaunch. SeaLaunch is majoriy owned by Boeing, which is an American company, so it still must follow US procedures for launching, even though it launches from sea in the middle of nowhere with a Ukrainian rocket on a ship crewed mostly by Russians.

Ja, the U.S. government likes to make life hard for expatriates. The U.S. government is one of three countries (also the Philippines and Estonia) that require its citizens living abroad to pay taxes. If someone renounces his U.S. citizenship, then the U.S. government would still require them to pay taxes for up to 10 years after the renunciation. It seems that the prevailing attitude among Americans is this, "Why on earth would you ever want to live outside the United States unless you're trying to escape our laws or avoid paying our taxes." It shows the general arrogance that most Americans have.

As far as I know this cannot be true in general sense as far as taxes are considered. There are bilateral agreements about double-taxation.

Such an agreement is closed to prevent double-taxation of citizens of one country living in another country and earning money there.

The Federal Republic of Germany has closed several double-taxation agreements.

I don't know wether is is one closed with the USA but if not the cause simply will be an economic one. Such an agreement has to be interesting for the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany as well and this only is the case if there are sufficiently much citizens and companies living in the other country and earning money there on both side - USA AND Federal Republic of Germany.

I wouldn't, but that is not on topic. I've seen a lot of eager, hopeful people apply and receive citizenship in the US, and I doubt they would, either. Anyway, that's not on topic, and I don't wish to make this another realpolitik thread. We all have the same basic goals. Gettting up there and floating around.

There are very valid reasons for the US to want to keep control over what its citizens do abroad in terms of aerospace technology. Think about it for awhile, and it will make sense. (And not just for the US. I am sure that the French government wouldn't want one of their engineers taking the blueprints for the Rafale over to Libya and giving it away without permission.)

The fact is that maritime customs, law, and traditions do not work completely as a model for an emerging spacetime industry. I'm not saying what we have now is completely workable, but it will take a lot of painful adjustments. The nation-states cannot be left out of the picture. In fact, they won't allow themselves to be left out of the picture. What goes up (and doesn't hit escape velocity) must come down, making most space hardware potentially a strategic asset, whether we like to think about it that way or not.

Reminds me of during the early 19th century when a British man (whose name I unfortunately do not remember) brought over to America designs for a machine that did mass-production. The British outlawed taking the designs for any machine out of Britain, so the man memorized the designs. He then implemented them in America. I wonder if we would see a similar defiance in the near-future with regards to spaceflight? It's the way that selfish governments looking after their own interests inhibit the economic and technological development of the world.

You're right, the nation-states will try to interfere. I am however of the belief that, for example, private property rights do not come from the government. Such rights, among others, are inalienable rights of mankind. Governments are instituted among men to help protect those rights (paraphrasing Jefferson here). When the government becomes abusive of those ends, then it is the right of the people to modify or abolish it. In other words, if certain governments try to interfere with people exploring and developing in space when such strongly gets underway, those governmenst are going to fall behind and become irrelevant.

This all reminds me of the U.S. military reserving the "right" to destroy any satellite in space that it wants, saying that no-one can own property there.

bad_astra wrote:

beneficii wrote:

If I had to, I would renounce my citizenship without regret.

I wouldn't, but that is not on topic. I've seen a lot of eager, hopeful people apply and receive citizenship in the US, and I doubt they would, either. Anyway, that's not on topic, and I don't wish to make this another realpolitik thread. We all have the same basic goals. Gettting up there and floating around.

There are very valid reasons for the US to want to keep control over what its citizens do abroad in terms of aerospace technology. Think about it for awhile, and it will make sense. (And not just for the US. I am sure that the French government wouldn't want one of their engineers taking the blueprints for the Rafale over to Libya and giving it away without permission.)

The fact is that maritime customs, law, and traditions do not work completely as a model for an emerging spacetime industry. I'm not saying what we have now is completely workable, but it will take a lot of painful adjustments. The nation-states cannot be left out of the picture. In fact, they won't allow themselves to be left out of the picture. What goes up (and doesn't hit escape velocity) must come down, making most space hardware potentially a strategic asset, whether we like to think about it that way or not.

Reminds me of during the early 19th century when a British man (whose name I unfortunately do not remember) brought over to America designs for a machine that did mass-production. The British outlawed taking the designs for any machine out of Britain, so the man memorized the designs. He then implemented them in America. I wonder if we would see a similar defiance in the near-future with regards to spaceflight? It's the way that selfish governments looking after their own interests inhibit the economic and technological development of the world.

Somehow I don't see Elon Musk keeping the full design of Falcon V in his head. Maybe he's some sort of Herbert-esque mentat. Maybe pigs will fly.

Quote:

You're right, the nation-states will try to interfere. I am however of the belief that, for example, private property rights do not come from the government.

So go mine your asteroid in peace. But do so in a way your nation doesn't feel to be a threat. You might stand a better chance if you declare your asteroid an independant nation and get recognized by at least a few other countries. (This is not always easy to do. A small micronation like the Sovreign Knights of Malta is sort-of a recognized independant nation even though its territory consists of a bulilding in Rome, whereas the Principality of Sealand, which has in some ways a far better claim to being a nation is uniformly not recognized as such by any true nation state.

Probably, IMHO, the needs of spacefaring cultures in the future may lead to that scenario. Those new nations probably won't remotely resemble our current forms of government, save for the usual human tendancies to avarace, beautocracy, and pointless debate. In the meantime is hasn't nearly come to that, and it won't for a long time. Maybe centuries. For now, just get your home country's permission to launch rockets. I don't see the problem here. In fact it's not something I have heard any serious contender in spaceflight complain about.

Quote:

In other words, if certain governments try to interfere with people exploring and developing in space when such strongly gets underway, those governmenst are going to fall behind and become irrelevant.

Possibly. Time will tell. Right now it's millionares signing up to joyride at 100km. It is a start. It's not the start any of us dreamed about as kids, (wher's my damned flying car?) but we take what we can get. We're a long way from pioneers and manefestoes. We're into metal bending though, and that's NICE.

Quote:

This all reminds me of the U.S. military reserving the "right" to destroy any satellite in space that it wants, saying that no-one can own property there.

That is a good thing. If nations cannot defend their people they have no point existing, as I am sure you agree, being that you seem to be of a Jeffersonian bent. If a satellite is flying over your head, in your "airspace", and you perceive it as a threat, you have the right as a nation (if you can) to destroy such a satellite. Iron filings and high explosives do remarkable things to hardware at orbital velocities. [i]

It seem's ridulous that the US is trying to keep a lid on this technology while the Russians are helping just about anyone who asks (China, Iran, Malaysia and now Brazil). The only people the US are hurting are their own industry, the Russians are gaining more and more influence around the world while the US is becoming isolated. How isolated is shown by the Virgin debarcle where there are difficulties even dealing with Britain, who arguably is supposed to be their biggest ally.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It is exactly the same stupid regulations that applied to computer technology not so long ago. I seem to recall that those regulations were relaxed somewhat a few years ago. Maybe the government will wake up sooner on this one.

Reminds me of during the early 19th century when a British man (whose name I unfortunately do not remember) brought over to America designs for a machine that did mass-production. The British outlawed taking the designs for any machine out of Britain, so the man memorized the designs. He then implemented them in America. I wonder if we would see a similar defiance in the near-future with regards to spaceflight? It's the way that selfish governments looking after their own interests inhibit the economic and technological development of the world.

I can't believe I can't remember who that was! He's totally awesome... I can tell you the year is 1791 actually, and I think his name starts with an 'F' (I want to say Robert Fulton but obviously that's wrong).

1790 Dec 20, In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, 23-year-old British subject Samuel Slater began production of the first American spinning mill. The British jealously guarded their technological superiority in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, making it illegal for machinery, plans and even the men who built and repaired them to leave the country. After serving a 7-year mill apprenticeship in England, Slater recognized the potential offered in America. He memorized the plans for intricate machine specifications, disguised himself as a farm worker and in 1789 sailed to a new life across the Atlantic. Slater entered into a partnership with Rhode Island merchant Moses Brown and built a small spinning mill--the equivalent of 72 spinning wheels.

This Space.com article says that the ITAR regulations are now making it increasingly difficult for ESA to work with NASA and they are likely to decline working with them on the CEV because of them. It is looking to maybe partner with the Russians or Japanese on a crew vehicle.

Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous, surely these regulations were not meant to be applied in such a draconian way. If this continues no one will be able to work with NASA and international collaboration will be a thing of the past.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I am looking at it by several large question marks too but thsi moment I become aware a little bit that NASA and the Us have a monopoly on a large number of methods, equipments and technologies - and so they can't know what others - "countries of evil", terrorists etc. - would do if they get it. What they do is irratzonal to some degree - but currently they donÄ't have a basis for rationality and are a little bit neurotic unprventably. They urgently want to avoid temptating the fate.

So they feel better if other´s reinvent their methods and technologies independently and see this way what will occur without being forced to think that they themselves helped it to occur.

Perhaps seen form their point of view it has a real advantagge - since long they wnat Europe to constrcut its own manned vehicle. Now ESA is forced to do so. Isn't the worst fate for them - is it?

But I still agree - it's unreasonable what NASA and the US are doing - regarding the order of magnitude or the degree.

I think that if this means that ESA develops its own manned spacecraft, with the help of the Russians or someone else, then this can only be good for European spaceflight.

NASA is certainly ahead in a lot of space related technology but probably not all so might want help from other countries to achieve its aims. Information will not be a one way street and if the US refuse to allow information out of NASA then they will be forced to repeat research already done.

I can see a point where the US has become isolated from the rest of the world's space agencies, they are being far to paranoid. If other agencies collaborate on space projects and make better progress than NASA in some areas then they might decide not to share that information with NASA. Also it will make it more difficult for NASA to achieve its exploration goals without the help of other nations, take longer and cost the US tax payer more.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It seems that space experts in the US are starting to wake up to the problems that America's current policies are causing and are afraid that it could leave the US isolated from the rest of the world when it comes to space.